CAT/OP/ITA/1 64. A positive aspect was that one of the doctors also was a psychologist. However, evidence showed that migrants were not informed and did not understand the treatment they were receiving, which in one case led to stress and retraumatisation as the migrant wanted to be transferred but had to stay behind due to his medical condition for which he didn’t get adequate explanation. 65. The SPT recommends that migrants receive information about their medical condition, necessary medication and treatment in a format and language they can understand and which is age, culture and gender sensitive. The State party should ensure that adequate numbers of female and male medical and health staff are employed and available to provide quality health services and appropriate medication, including for sexual and reproductive health. 66. Whilst noting that migrants received a hygiene kit with basic items for men and women, the SPT noted that only one shower room was functioning, requiring male and female migrants to take turns, and that toilets did not flush, rendering the hygiene conditions of the facility unsatisfactory. 67. The SPT recommends that shower and toilet facilities be repaired and regularly maintained. 68. An external caterer provided three daily meals. However, the SPT received complaints about insufficient food and water supply. 69. The SPT recommends that water and food be available beyond the mere nutritionally required minimum. 70. The reception facility was expanded to a maximum capacity of 400 with additional mattresses in the recreational and eating space to accommodate the large number of arrivals the day the SPT visited. Everyone slept in the same hall with women on one side and men on the other. A group of unaccompanied boys that had arrived approximately two weeks earlier was moved to a second, smaller room. The SPT is of the view that mixed facilities should provide for adequate gender segregation ensuring sufficient privacy and protection from sexual and gender based violence. 71. Migrants could request to leave the premises during the day but unaccompanied children were not allowed to leave and there were no activities for them to engage in. The reception facility did not feature any outdoor recreational or personal space. The SPT is concerned that the migrants, who are not supposed to be held longer than 48 hours in this centre, on average remained at the facility for three to four days before they were transferred. The SPT found that, albeit exceptional, records evidenced that stays of up to 16 days had been registered. The SPT is further concerned that a group of unaccompanied children had been held there for approximately two weeks, complaining that they did not know why they were still there, how long they would still remain, that they had nothing to do or anywhere to play and were also worrying because they could not have regular contact with their families. 72. The SPT recognises the need for shelters to provide immediate assistance to newly arrived migrants and the logistical and resource challenges this may pose. However, the SPT also is aware that the numbers of yearly arrivals have been steady if not growing over the past few years and that the expectation is that this situation will continue. It can therefore not be considered an emergency. The SPT considers stays longer than 48 hours in these centres to be inappropriate as well as unlawful, given the lack of any legal basis. 73. The SPT concludes that the combination of restricted freedom of movement, lack of personal, recreational and outdoor space, as well as unsatisfactory sanitary conditions render reception centres of this type (of structure-to delete) inappropriate for periods longer than 48 hours. 13